Vasudevan vs State

P. Janaki Amma, J.—The Petitioner, a driver attached to the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation was charged u/s 279 IPC. for having driven the bus (R-6 1) KLV 5773 in a rash and negligent manner and causing damage to the lmpala Car KLH 500 which stood parked on the left side of the road in front of the Little Flower Convent Girls'' High School at Mammiyoor near Chowghat. The occurrence took place at 4-30 p.m. on 1-9-72.

The Petitioner''s plea that collision took place while the car was being reversed by P.W. 1, the owner thereof was negatived by the courts below. The trial Court found that P.W. 1 was standing at the gate of the school waiting for his daughter and that there was nobody in the car. The Court convicted the Petitioner u/s 279 IPC. The conviction was upheld in appeal. No reasons are made out to interfere with the concurrent finding that the Petitioner was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and that it was the bus that dashed against the car.

The interesting point that has been raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that even assuming that the Petitioner was rash or negligent an offence u/s 279 IPC. is not made out in the case since there was nobody in the car and, therefore, no occasion for endangering human life or causing hurt or injury to any person. The argument advanced is that a conviction u/s 279 IPC. is sustainable only if some person was actually there in a position of danger.

Section 279 IPC. reads:

Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

A contention similar to the one raised by the Petitioner did not find favour with the Bombay High Court in Queen-Empress v. Hormusji Nowrvji Lord ILR Bom. 715 . It was held that the Court was competent to take into consideration the probability of persons using the road being placed in danger by the act of the accused. The above ruling was followed by the Lahore High Court in Emperor v. Abdul Latif 45 Cri. LJ. 699 . The court observed.

No order or driver can tell when a pedestrian may happen to arrive on a road, consequently he cannot drive or ride rashly or negligently even at a time when the road happens to be temporally unoccupied by any pedestrian or by any vehicle. And this is so not only because any person or any vehicle may happen to arrive on the road at any time, but also because the driver or the rider is to look to his own safety as well and cannot at all indulge in a riding or driving which may endanger his own life.

Section 279 IPC. stands in contradistinction to Section 337 and Section 338 IPC. where hurt or grievous hurt should ensue as a result of the rash and negligent act of the accused. Section 279 IPC. takes into account the potential danger or possibility of danger to life or injury to persons on account of the rash or negligent driving or riding by an accused. Therefore, the absence of a person inside the car is not by itself a circumstance which absolves the Petitioner from liability.

The contention that Section 279 IPC. has application only to cases of danger to life or possibility of bodily injury to a human being and not to cases of harm to property has also no weight. The word "injury" as defined in Section 44 IPC. denotes "any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property." There is no reason why a different meaning should be assigned to that word in Section 279 IPC. Therefore, negligent or rash driving which may cause harm to the property of a person is covered by Section 279 IPC.

The Petitioner has a case that at the time of the occurrence, there were cars parked on both sides of the road and the road was packed with school children. This is not an extenuating circumstance. As observed in Emperor v. Abdul Latif (supra) "the more the street is crowded, the greater the diligence and care expected from the drivers"

The revision petition is dismissed.